I felt, and feel, maybe incorrectly that a post on a forum does not require the level of concentration on punctuation, grammar or spelling that an essay, journal article or book might. I am not wild about the txt spk you sometimes find online, but I figure that so long as it is clear what is meant that is sufficient. To misquote that famous, fat drunk Churchill, although he may not have been talking about online forums at the time ' Grammatical pedantry is not something up with which I will not put.' I suppose it is mostly laziness though, if what I was trying to say was obscured by the way I said it then I am wrong. Yes, I thought it was odd no one had brought up the sex and partying thing.

Inflation doesn't apply to money only. Fact is, 40 yrs ago you didn't need school whatsoever but a point was reached where everyone was able to attend therefore the minimum was raised to highschool diplomas. We reached a point where every applicant had a highschool diploma so college degrees are the new entry requirements. For some places, it's a Masters only because educational inflation dictates it.

Unempployable how?
There are two Engineering degrees that are extremely general: Chemical and Mechanical.
As a Chemical Engineer, you will learn about physics and mechanics, electrical systems, thermodynamics, material science & eng., heat and mass transfer, etc. Basically you get all the tools regarding applied science.
Philosophy on the other hand gives you a strong background on logic, ethics, metaphysics, epistimology, etc. which give you an understanding of the world.
Combine the knowledge of applied science with the understanding of your human environment and you become a decision maker.
At this level of intelligence you have more of an employer than an employee.
If you feel that you'll be unemployable that is great: long live entrepreneurship, long live greatness, long live capitalism, long live America.

Only math is worth studying. The rest of us ("state U history grad" here) should just sell shoes.

There are a couple of different ways to take this: what is the market value of a university education versus, say, four years on a job; or, what is the value of a university education? The value of the former has been shown in many studies, the value of the latter is apparent.

Unempployable how?
There are two Engineering degrees that are extremely general: Chemical and Mechanical.
As a Chemical Engineer, you will learn about physics and mechanics, electrical systems, thermodynamics, material science & eng., heat and mass transfer, etc. Basically you get all the tools regarding applied science.
Philosophy on the other hand gives you a strong background on logic, ethics, metaphysics, epistimology, etc. which give you an understanding of the world.
Combine the knowledge of applied science with the understanding of your human environment and you become a decision maker.
At this level of intelligence you have more of an employer than an employee.
If you feel that you'll be unemployable that is great: long live entrepreneurship, long live greatness, long live capitalism, long live America.

I hear you man, in my last year of a chemical engineering degree, has completly changed how I think. Spent the summer working in a dairy factory, the dairy industry is world class down here in NZ and was a fantastic experience.

I'm also conincidentally doing as many philosophy papers as I can fit in!

And no matter how much anyone argues that you could learn that (history, art, philosophy) on your own I have two responses: (i) aside from learning names and dates, you won't learn much else and (ii) you'll never actually do it if you're not forced. And I'm all for forcing people to become more interesting.

b

Agreeing with this. While it's theoretically possible to study almost anything yourself (clinical and other applied sciences aside), it's very hard to find the self-motivation to make any serious advances.

I guess it shouldn't surprise me that this question is raised so often among the general popultion (i.e. non-teachers, etc.).

Here's my economics (and former professor) take on it:

Your college degree is a signal to employers that you are able to learn. Sure, little of what you learned in class may be applicable to your actual job and you will learn much of what you need to know while employed. But college (just like HS and primary school before that) give you the basis from which to learn those things. Showing your potential employer that you are able to learn (and learn quickly) tells them that they won't have to spend so much time teaching you stuff. That's why things like your GPA and course distribution count so much. Were you able to learn well in many different subjects? If yes, then you look even better.

Beyond that, I'd argue that going to college and learning a bunch about a number of different subjects also makes you a more interesting person. And no matter how much anyone argues that you could learn that (history, art, philosophy) on your own I have two responses: (i) aside from learning names and dates, you won't learn much else and (ii) you'll never actually do it if you're not forced. And I'm all for forcing people to become more interesting.

Agreeing with this. While it's theoretically possible to study almost anything yourself (clinical and other applied sciences aside), it's very hard to find the self-motivation to make any serious advances.

It's rather easy to "study" things that interest you completely on your own. College is a reflection of how much you're willing to learn about things that may or may not interest you, while paying someone to do so, instead of being paid.

i am just wondering why such pressure is put on a university degree, as form experience most of the people with degrees learn 99% of the things they need to know working.

People are lazy and like to take shortcuts. This is an innate part of human nature (see Robert Cialdini's "Influence"). From assuming that a $50 widget must be better than a $25 widget, to assuming that a guy in a nice suit must be wealthy, to assuming that a person with a degree is smarter than someone without, humans rely on a simple set of signals to make snap judgments about people. I have a degree from a good school with a complicated sounding major and it's incredible how many people take this to immediately assume that I am some kind of genius without knowing anything else about me. This is both depressing and incredibly useful. In reality I cruised through college with mediocre grades because I found it boring and preferred to spend most of my time intoxicated and chasing women. That bit was rather fabulous. Since then I've pretty much forgotten anything I learned about the specialist academic field I got my degree in and live in terror of actually running into anyone who knows enough about the subject to quiz me on it. Meanwhile, the guy who spent that 4 years building up commercial experience has to spend time explaining all his work and how it improved his skills - time which many people just don't have to give (not least recruiters who're thumbing through a stack of resumes). It's unfair and stupid, but a college degree makes people assume you're smart and flings opens doors which you'd otherwise have to work damn hard to get a foot in. Whether or not a top-tier US degree is worth it is another question. In the UK, where you pay about 10% of the cost of a top US degree, it's unquestionably a bargain in terms of return on investment over your lifetime.

Until you hit the workforce? There are usually 3 or 4 girls in any mid-sized situation who will sleep with you at any given time.

Anyway, yes, university is important, because otherwise you can't get your foot in the door for a lot of jobs. Good luck doing it with an arts degree as well.

It is much harder to find a mate of the same socio-economic class as you outside of a university setting. While that's not the be-all, end-all; your marriage is more likely to last if you start off on about an even foot. I don't want to sound crass, but few MBAs are going to marry high-school drop outs, and vice versa. People will largely marry someone with comparable education.